Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.

Frequently asked questions

Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+

Legal Case Shots is built to help you quickly identify and understand relevant precedent. For citation in pleadings or filings, always verify against the full judgment PDF and current citation format (e.g., 2026 INSC ___).

How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+

The holding is what the court legally decided. The lesson learnt translates that into a practical takeaway: what a lawyer should factor into case strategy or client advice as a result of this precedent.

Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+

Both. Each case shows a distilled summary (case type, key holding, and lesson learnt) and links to the full judgment as a PDF for when you need the complete text for research or citation.

Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+

Yes. Use Advanced Filters to narrow results by decision date and by practice area, including Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Service & Administrative Law, Family Law, Civil Property & Inheritance, and Labour & Industrial Law.

Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+

Yes. You can filter judgments by the judge or bench that decided the case, which is useful for tracking how a particular judge has reasoned on similar issues across multiple rulings.

What is Legal Case Shots?+

Legal Case Shots is a searchable database of Supreme Court of India judgments, each broken down into the case type, the court's key holding, and a practical lesson learnt, with the full judgment available as a PDF for citation or deeper reading.

Consumer RightsSupreme Court of India

Ricardo Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs Ravi Kuckian & Others

Not available · 2024 INSC 715Decided 6 Sept 2024
Not available

Background

In a consumer complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), the appellant company's counsel accepted notice on the first hearing date without having a vakalatnama, and was given time to file a written statement. The written statement was not filed in time, and the appellant claimed this was because it was never actually served a copy of the complaint. The Commission foreclosed (barred) the appellant's right to file a written statement, holding that more than 45 days (the maximum period recognised for such filings) had passed since notice was accepted.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the part of the NCDRC's order foreclosing the written statement. Relying on its own Constitution Bench ruling in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage, the Court noted that the 30/45-day limitation period runs from the date the opposite party actually receives the complaint along with the notice, not from mere receipt of notice alone. Since the Commission's order never recorded that a copy of the complaint was actually supplied to the appellant's counsel, it was too harsh to foreclose the appellant's right on mere assumption. The Court permitted the appellant to file its written statement by a fixed date, subject to paying Rs. 1,00,000 costs to each of the 31 respondents, with a revised timeline for replication and evidence before the next hearing.

Lesson Learnt

A party's right to respond in a legal proceeding cannot be cut off unless it is clearly established that the complaint itself (not just a notice) was actually served on them: strict procedural timelines must be read together with genuine, provable service.

Ricardo Constructions Pvt. Ltd. vs Ravi Kuckian & Others – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware